Faith Alone

[SyCarl]

Sycarl:

I agree with the previous poster that your last paragraph sounds incredibly Catholic to me.

It appears to me that you are starting to question sola fide. When you assert that “As I have said earlier, I don’t think that God expects us to fully understand the mechanics of how He saves us. I think that if we believe and try to live properly, we will be saved even if we don’t fully understand how the faith and works might interact”- so we can’t be assured of salvation by merely saying we have faith? Well we agree on something! And this certainly agrees with the passages I asked you about earlier! We don’t know!

Your assertion that “doing good works to merit heaven” is not a good thing- is an assertion I totally agree with. As Catholics, we are never taught- “now do good and be good so you can get points and go to Heaven!”

We believe we are called by our faith - to live a Faith working through love. We believe the Bible is very clear about our need to live our Faith in every aspect of our life. So now my question to you is this- if sola fide is indeed questionable, what else could Luther and the Reformers been wrong on? Doesn’t that open the floodgates to quesiton everything? What else do you mistakingly believe to be our Catholic beliefs that in fact are not what we actually believe?

Good read: Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn…

No, I am not questioning faith alone merely because I agree that we should do good works. I do have difficulty with the following canons from the Council of Trent.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well [Page 48] doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema

I do not feel that we should expect a reward for good works. Instead, as Jesus says in Luke 17:9-10

“He does not thank the salve because he did the things which were commanded, does he?
So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say “We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.””

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose [Page 49] living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

I totally disagree that anything we can do merits anything.

The canons quoted are from :
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

 

[Philthy]

It also fits in quite well with the Protestant view of faith alone but not faith that is alone…

“the” Protestant view?? This is “a” Protestant view which is a modified attempt IMHO to reconcile all the Scripture which argues against “faith alone”. It fails at the outset because the “that is not alone” part of the “Protestant view of faith alone” happens - or doesnt happen - at a later point in time than the “acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Saviour”. And that is a problem because classical Protestantism teaches that a person is “saved” AT THE MOMENT they “come to faith” in Christ. Yet no one will know - not the individual involved and not his friends - whether, in fact, he has “come to faith” UNTIL it is revealed by works. What then, is the significance of “salvation by faith alone”? Does it provide assurance of salvation? No it does not. Only bearing fruit for Him can accomplish that assurance that you truly have a salvific faith.
So then, other than distinguishing oneself from the Catholic Church, what does the doctrine of Sola Fide accomplish, or provide for the believer?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

“the” Protestant view?? This is “a” Protestant view which is a modified attempt IMHO to reconcile all the Scripture which argues against “faith alone”. It fails at the outset because the “that is not alone” part of the “Protestant view of faith alone” happens - or doesnt happen - at a later point in time than the “acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Saviour”. And that is a problem because classical Protestantism teaches that a person is “saved” AT THE MOMENT they “come to faith” in Christ. Yet no one will know - not the individual involved and not his friends - whether, in fact, he has “come to faith” UNTIL it is revealed by works. What then, is the significance of “salvation by faith alone”? Does it provide assurance of salvation? No it does not. Only bearing fruit for Him can accomplish that assurance that you truly have a salvific faith.
So then, other than distinguishing oneself from the Catholic Church, what does the doctrine of Sola Fide accomplish, or provide for the believer?

Excellent question, well pharsed!

I’d been wondering and asking this same thing. I’m not sure we will ever get an answer to this question from our reformed friends.

I’m not sure what the problem is with answering it…

 

[SyCarl]

“the” Protestant view?? This is “a” Protestant view which is a modified attempt IMHO to reconcile all the Scripture which argues against “faith alone”. It fails at the outset because the “that is not alone” part of the “Protestant view of faith alone” happens - or doesnt happen - at a later point in time than the “acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Saviour”. And that is a problem because classical Protestantism teaches that a person is “saved” AT THE MOMENT they “come to faith” in Christ. Yet no one will know - not the individual involved and not his friends - whether, in fact, he has “come to faith” UNTIL it is revealed by works. What then, is the significance of “salvation by faith alone”? Does it provide assurance of salvation? No it does not. Only bearing fruit for Him can accomplish that assurance that you truly have a salvific faith.
So then, other than distinguishing oneself from the Catholic Church, what does the doctrine of Sola Fide accomplish, or provide for the believer?

It is not a modified view. Even if you do not know when you truly believed, God does and that is what is important. You are saved from the time you believe. You may not present evidence of it right away but that does not affect the timing of when you are saved. There will be disagreement among Protestants as to whether you can lose that salvation but not generally when it starts.

Using myself as an example, I could not p(name removed by moderator)oint a specific time I beleived. I wento to Sunday school as a child but didn’t continue afterwards. I confess that when I started to go to church again it was because I thought it would be useful if I wanted to pursue a career in politics. (Which I never did.) I wouldn’t say that I had true faith at that time but over the 30 plus years since I changed. I could not name a moment and did not have a sudden “born again” experience but I know I believe.

It does provide a great of comfort knowing that Jesus died for me and that even if I make a mistake that I will be forgiven. As I have repeatedly said, I think our differences on this point are largely semantic. That does not mean that we agree on everything else. Howvever, the faith alone position does recognize that you can be saved even before you realize it. Once you realize it you will seek baptism, if you were not baptized as an infant, but you have already been saved, even if something happens to you before baptism. Your infant baptism does not automatically save you. It is a claim to the covenant promises which you actually accept when you believe.

 

[guanophore]

I am not ant-Catholic just because I am not Catholic and support a Protestant position. I have no difficulty going to Mass when visiting my in-laws. I consider that whatever differences we may have that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Many of our differences are a matter of semantics. I certainly hope that I do not come across as being anti-Catholic as to my mind there is a real difference between disagreeing on somethings and being anti something.

That is good. Perhaps I have gotten the wrong impression of you, since many of your posts seem so hostile toward Catholic practices and docrine. May we all be one, as He is one!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It fails at the outset because the “that is not alone” part of the “Protestant view of faith alone” happens - or doesnt happen - at a later point in time than the “acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Saviour”. And that is a problem because classical Protestantism teaches that a person is “saved” AT THE MOMENT they “come to faith” in Christ. Yet no one will know - not the individual involved and not his friends - whether, in fact, he has “come to faith” UNTIL it is revealed by works. What then, is the significance of “salvation by faith alone”? Does it provide assurance of salvation? No it does not. Only bearing fruit for Him can accomplish that assurance that you truly have a salvific faith.

This is a good argument which I regularly use myself to counter the Protestant claim that they have complete assurance of their salvation but that Catholics cannot be sure.

Well if “faith is never alone” then the question of just HOW MANY and WHEN these good works are supposed to appear becomes a problem that Protestants have to answer, but cannot do so consistently if they are to maintain their original claim. LOGICALLY if a Protestant were to find themself sinning they should question whether they were ever saved. And then comes the question of how many good works do you have to perform before you can safely assume you were saved.

The ironic thing is that St Paul spent half his Epistles yelling at Christians who had turned to lives of sin, YET nowhere does he go around saying anything to the effect of, “if you are sinning you might never have been saved in the first place”.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Since our Divine adoption and friendship with God is based on perfect love of God or charity (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13; James 2:17 sqq.), dead faith devoid of charity cannot justify us. Only such faith as is active in charity and good works can justify man.

Whenever faith justifies it is not faith alone, but faith made operative and replenished by charity(Galatians 5:6) By works, St. James does not understand the pagan good works to which St. Paul refers in the Epistle to the Romans, or the works done in fulfilment of the Jewish Law, but the-works of salvation made possible by the operation of supernatural grace.

Without charity and the works of charity faith is dead. Faith receives life only from and through charity. Only to dead faith is the doctrine applied: “Faith alone does not justify”. On the other hand, faith informed by charity has the power of justification.

Faith is the beginning of salvation, because no one can be converted to God unless he recognize Him as his supernatural end and aim. Faith is not only the initiatory act of justification, but the foundation as well.

Since a real conversion is inconceivable without faith and contrition, we naturally place faith at the beginning and contrition at the end of the process.

So, by the grace of God I have chosen to believe in Him. I have been baptized (“born again”). I must continue to cooperate with his grace, doing works of love.

more info? go here,
NewAdvent

CATHOLIC

 

[catholic1seeks]

“the” Protestant view?? This is “a” Protestant view which is a modified attempt IMHO to reconcile all the Scripture which argues against “faith alone”. It fails at the outset because the “that is not alone” part of the “Protestant view of faith alone” happens - or doesnt happen - at a later point in time than the “acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Saviour”.

:extrahappy: Excellent! I like it!

So many, but not all, of these Protestants claim works of love are simply the fruits of faith, which, in essence, are. Faith, of course, is the beginning of justification; it’s the foundation.

However, works of love are so much more than that. They’re essential for our salvation - NOT as the “sprinkles on the icecream” kind-of way, but, rather, the icecream itself.

CATHOLIC

 

[Philthy]

It is not a modified view. Even if you do not know when you truly believed, God does and that is what is important.

No, SyCarl that is not what is important. We need to communicate to one another information which can have an impact on our eternal salvation. It is most definitely important to know the means by which we can judge - to the best of our limited human knowledge - whether or not we are in a state of grace or saved or whatever you wish to call it.

You are saved from the time you believe. You may not present evidence of it right away but that does not affect the timing of when you are saved. There will be disagreement among Protestants as to whether you can lose that salvation but not generally when it starts

.

The problem is though that its a USELESS speculation. The entire doctrine of "you are saved by a faith alone but not by a faith which is alone is USELESS. It was meant to protest the concept of works being part of salvation and it utterly fails. According you your slant on “faith alone” one cannot know they are saved apart from doing good works out of love for God.
I dont get the importance of such a distinction from the Catholic position. What do you do with the information? Of what value is it?

Using myself as an example, I could not p(name removed by moderator)oint a specific time I beleived. I wento to Sunday school as a child but didn’t continue afterwards. I confess that when I started to go to church again it was because I thought it would be useful if I wanted to pursue a career in politics. (Which I never did.) I wouldn’t say that I had true faith at that time but over the 30 plus years since I changed. I could not name a moment and did not have a sudden “born again” experience but I know I believe.

That’s how you see it NOW. I’ll bet you believed you believed 20 years ago. That’s the whole point. Things change, people change. You dont simply decide, using some unstated criteria, that you have “salvation faith”.

As I have repeatedly said, I think our differences on this point are largely semantic.

Hopefully so - I hope that there are no practical differences.

Howvever, the faith alone position does recognize that you can be saved even before you realize it.

Useless speculation. It does nothing of value and leads no one to God to make this claim.

Your infant baptism does not … save you.

Yes it does, but it doesnt mean you necessarily go to Heaven when you die. Do you understand the difference?

It is a claim to the covenant promises which you actually accept when you believe.

A claim? A claim to whom?

 

[Pax]

This is simply not true. There is nothing in Augustine’s commentary on John 6 that disagrees with Catholic teaching. If you were expecting an apologetics article against the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist then you would be looking for it about 1200 years too early. Most of the doubters/dissenters came with the Reformation.

Another thing that is kind of upside down in your choice of Augustine’s Tractates on John 6 is that you are on a thread on “faith alone”. Augustine makes some interesting comments on “faith and works” in the Tractates.

He says:

Tractate 25 (John 6:15-44)

“Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law: Romans 3:28 there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:4 For that reason, He wills not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that works by love. [Galatians 5:6] Nor did He say, This is your work; but, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent; so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord.”

The content of this is exactly what we have been preaching on this thread.

It also fits in quite well with the Protestant view of faith alone but not faith that is alone. Jesus calls faith the work of God and of course faith then is a work in itself. However, whether you call faith itself a work, does not change faith alone because since, even if it can be called a work, it is still faith. Paul seems to use faith in a different sense, at least in Ephesians 2 where he says that faith itself is a gift and he distinctly separates works. Now the gift is given so that works can be done. I would agree with that but it is not through those works that we are saved. The works themselves are given to us by God. Augustine is quite clear about this in his Predestination of the Saints.
…
…
As I have said earlier, I don’t think that God expects us to fully understand the mechanics of how He saves us. I think that if we believe and try to live properly, we will be saved even if we don’t fully understand how the faith and works might interact. A major problem I have is that if we are doing good works because we want to go to Heaven or because we don’t want to be damned, we are doing them for the wrong purpose. Both of those purposes are based on** I want **or I don’t want. The reason we should be doing works has nothing with “I”. We should be doing works, not beacuse we want some result but simply because we love God and He wants and tells us to do them.

Some of your response is Okay, but I don’t think that the comments from Augustine support the Protestant view of sola fide at all. This is what Augustine says in conjunction with Paul:

1. Faith and works are only kept separate in terms of works of OT Law.
2. Faith is a work and faith and good works in Christ are not to be separated.
3. It is that same faith that works by love. [Galatians 5:6]
4. The good works are the work of God in us.

This is what we have been preaching on this thread particularly in our articulation and exegesis of Eph 2:8-10. Nevertheless, we have made little headway in this area with the non-Catholics on this thread. Clearly, Augustine is not supporting sola fide and the Protestant apologists on this thread don’t seem to think so either by arguing against the four points I’ve listed above.

A couple of other things. Scripture says that we are “**not saved **by faith alone.” Nowhere does scripture say that we are “saved by faith alone, but faith is never alone.” There is a huge difference between the two statements. One is scriptural and one is not. One is true and the other is a deception and slight of hand/word.

Faith has more than one dimension. Faith is a gift and faith is a work.

The gift of faith is not only given so that we can do good works. There is definitely more to it than that and the following scriptures make that quite clear.

“Faith is active with works and faith is completed by works”[James 2:22]

“…a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”[James 2:24]

Faith and works cannot be separated. "Faith without works is dead," and cannot save you.[James 2:17]

“Faith apart from works is barren.”[James 2:20]

Faith and works are like the body and spirit. Together we have a living human being; separated we have a dead body. **“For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.”**James 2:26]

 

[guanophore]

No, I am not questioning faith alone merely because I agree that we should do good works. I do have difficulty with the following canons from the Council of Trent.

I do not feel that we should expect a reward for good works. Instead, as Jesus says in Luke 17:9-10

I think both things are true. We can completely rely on any of the promises of Christ (rewards for our good works) as well as maintaining an attitude of humility.

I totally disagree that anything we can do merits anything.

What do you think that the scripture means:

“love covers a multitude of sins” ?

What are treasures in heaven? how does a person get them, if not merit?

 

[DLC]

If you think we are saved through a faith that does not work then you do understand salvation. Eph 2:8-10 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith and not as a result of works. But then verse 10 tells us why God saved us. We are saved in order that we may do good works. Works come after salvation never before or during. To understand this in a fuller way read the whole paragraph, Eph 2:1-10.

 

[Pax]

DLC,

You are half right…when we are first brought to faith it is complete gift per Eph 2:8-9. Verse 10 completely disagrees with the balance of your statement. This has been discussed at length and in detail earlier in this thread.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

DLC,

You are half right…when we are first brought to faith it is complete gift per Eph 2:8-9. Verse 10 completely disagrees with the balance of your statement. This has been discussed at length and in detail earlier in this thread.

Gee, Pax, do you ever wonder why we never see any protestants quoting from 1Corinthians chapter 12?

 

[catholic1seeks]

If you think we are saved through a faith that does not work then you do understand salvation. Eph 2:8-10 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith and not as a result of works. But then verse 10 tells us why God saved us. We are saved in order that we may do good works. Works come after salvation never before or during. To understand this in a fuller way read the whole paragraph, Eph 2:1-10.

So about this Ephesians 2:8-9

Usually, those who use this verse (especially Protestants) like to say the works Paul is speaking of are good works. If that were true, it would in no way conflict with Catholic theology. Note that the passage speaks of salvation as a past event - “you have been saved.” This passage thus refers to the salvation one received at the beginning of the Christian life.

Paul speaks of salvation as past, present, and future events. The kind of salvation he is discussing in Ephesians 2:8-9 is initial salvation (salvation as a past event).

Ephesians 2:8-9 does the contradict the Catholic way of thinking, even if the “works” Paul mentions are good works. This is because the Catholic Church does not teach we receive initial justification by good works. We do not have to do good works in order to come to God and be justified; as the Council of Trent says, "we are said to be justified by grace because nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification.

We as Christians are the result of God’s work, for he created us anew in the body of Christ so that we might do good works, for God intended us ahead of time for us to do them.

---

Ephesians 2:6-10

6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Where did all the reformers, go?

We’ve hit on the essential questions against the doctrine of “faith alone” and the defenders of it are not around.

It took us a thousand post to get to this point, let finish it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I just finished typing this as a private message for a fellow Baptist, and it’s rather necessary for this thread.

---

James 2

James does not see anything wrong with the faith he is talking about in James 2:14-26. The faith isn’t the problem; the characteristic of being alone is the problem.

To understand what kind of faith James has in mind, the key verse is verse 19, “…even the demons believe - and shudder.” The faith discussed is intellectual assent. You can’t read something bad into it, so don’t make the phrase “*mere *intellectual assent.”

This wouldn’t make since, for people would be boasting of their mere intellectual assent(v. 14). James would be offering to show his *mere *intellectual assent by his works(v. 18). He would be saying Abraham’s mere intellectual assent was active along with his works(v.22), etc.

(Any solution that impugns the faith James is talking about will fail, for this can be seen by substituting “bad faith” wherever faith is mentioned.)

So, the faith that James is discussing is intellectual assent (not mere intellectual assent). The text above, in red, could work if the phrase was “intellectual assent” and did not include the word “mere”. For example, James can speak of how Abraham’s intellectual assent was active with and completed by his works (v.22), concluding that man is not justified by intellectual assent alone.

James views intellectual assent as a good thing, but not as a thing that will save us by itself - alone.

 

[Good_Fella]

If you think we are saved through a faith that does not work then you do understand salvation. Eph 2:8-10 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith and not as a result of works. But then verse 10 tells us why God saved us. We are saved in order that we may do good works. Works come after salvation never before or during. To understand this in a fuller way read the whole paragraph, Eph 2:1-10.

Paul is telling us that faith initiates our justification and excludes works of law. In other words, we aren’t justified by impersonally following the rules for their own sake. We can claim no merit in this regard, for naturally we are inclined to break the rules. Thus Paul has other kinds of works in mind that must not be separated from faith and are just as essential to our salvation as faith is. These are works of mercy and genuine love. A faith that justifies us is a faith working through love (Gal 5, 6). Our genuine and sincere love of God and neighbour is something we can claim credit for. It’s meritorious on our part. (Sola Christu is a false, unbiblical Protestant concept.) If it weren’t, then there would be no point for Jesus to command us to love God and our neighbour in order to be saved. ( I believe I already mentioned this somewhere above, but some people aren’t listening.) Indeed, Paul teaches us that our faith isn’t static, it’s something that grows as a result of our willing obedience to the will of God: to love genuinely from the heart. Love is a free act on our part and necessary for our salvation.

This obedience is not achieved by just having faith in God and his promise of salvation, but by doing good works out of a genuine love of God and his children in spite of our salvation ( 2 Cor 10, 15). What good is loving only those who love us?, Jesus asks. When we obey God, we don’t just simply do what we are told out of fear of damnation or to keep up appearances; we obey by coming to realize the virtue of the commandment. Our obedience is translated into wanting to become what is good and true in contradiction to what we selfishly desire. When God commands us to do something, it’s more in the nature of an omniscient appeal. It’s better this way notwithstanding eternal damnation. And so we are called to renounce our selfishness (Lk 6, 46-47) ! David was saved, because he genuinely felt sorry for having offended God. He wasn’t saved because he knew that God would forgive him because he was sorry (Ps 51). His faith was a starting point, but it took his free response to God’s grace to complete it. God’s gift was met by a meritorious human act. David ‘wouldn’t’ have been forgiven unless he freely repented. It would not be fitting according to God’s revelation. Pardon the expression, but this “faith that works” theory is a load of selfish nonsense - a prodigious heresy recognized by the Council of Trent!

Good works are a sign of faith, but they are not an effect of our salvation. For we do not do good works just to show that we have faith (Js 1, 22-25). And if we do good works not just for appearance’s sake like the Pharisee (Lk 18, 9-14) then our actions will be credited to our account in emulation of the virtuous and righteous acts of Christ (Rom 4, 3; 5, 17; 5, 19). Our Lord gave us an example to follow, because he recognizes the meritorious potential of our deeds for which we shall be judged (Ps 62, 12; Prov 24, 12; Mt 16, 27; Rom 2, 6). If human merit has no role in our salvation, then what is the purpose of our Lord’s judging us on the Last Day? Will it be simply an exercise of Divine omnipotence ( the 5th Sola of Protestantism), or a separation of the sheep from the goats? Faith does initially justify, but good works should not be excluded. Hence, Paul is not telling the Ephesians that we are saved by faith alone. Nor are we saved by a true faith as opposed to a false faith to the exclusion of human merit. The apostle is telling us that faith initially justifies. Outside of faith and God’s grace we are in a system of debt. A man is justified not by faith alone but also by works done in God 's grace by the merits of Christ’s Passion, without which our works would amount to zilch (Js 2, 24).

Meanwhile, how does one define faith? Does it mean believing in the person of Christ, or believing in what Christ stood for with regard to human virtue? Will a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or athiest be denied the kingdom of heaven if he acknowledges his sins before God or his conscience or lays his life down for a friend? However we define faith, it cannot be excluded from meritorious human action (good works). For God became man to show us what we must “do” to be saved now that Jesus has opened the gates of heaven.

“He from the essence of the Father, nor is the Son again Son according to essence, but in consequence of virtue, as we who are called sons by grace.”
Athanasius (A.D. 351)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[SyCarl]

I just finished typing this as a private message for a fellow Baptist, and it’s rather necessary for this thread.

---

James 2

James does not see anything wrong with the faith he is talking about in James 2:14-26. The faith isn’t the problem; the characteristic of being alone is the problem.

To understand what kind of faith James has in mind, the key verse is verse 19, “…even the demons believe - and shudder.” The faith discussed is intellectual assent. You can’t read something bad into it, so don’t make the phrase “*mere *intellectual assent.”

This wouldn’t make since, for people would be boasting of their mere intellectual assent(v. 14). James would be offering to show his *mere *intellectual assent by his works(v. 18). He would be saying Abraham’s mere intellectual assent was active along with his works(v.22), etc.

(Any solution that impugns the faith James is talking about will fail, for this can be seen by substituting “bad faith” wherever faith is mentioned.)

So, the faith that James is discussing is intellectual assent (not mere intellectual assent). The text above, in red, could work if the phrase was “intellectual assent” and did not include the word “mere”. For example, James can speak of how Abraham’s intellectual assent was active with and completed by his works (v.22), concluding that man is not justified by intellectual assent alone.

James views intellectual assent as a good thing, but not as a thing that will save us by itself - alone.

However, intellectual assent is not the type of faith that Paul talks about. James talks about the belief of demons. They would know the truth and agree that it was true. Paul would not say we are justified by intellectual assent as in Romans 5:1. Hebrews 11:1 gives a definition of faith as “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

The demons do not hope for the truth they agree will occur. Also they have seen, which we have not. Our faith is a faith working through love. Note that Paul does not say “faith and love” or “faith and works”. It is faith that justifies us, not the working through love. This is made clearer by Ephesians 2:8-10. We are saved by faith it says. It emphasizes that it is not the result of works, even though we are created for works. We are saved for good works, not faithed by faith and works. If works are part of saving us then as Paul says it is not by grace.

 

[SyCarl]

Paul is telling us that faith initiates our justification and excludes works of law. In other words, we aren’t justified by impersonally following the rules for their own sake. We can claim no merit in this regard, for naturally we are inclined to break the rules. Thus Paul has other kinds of works in mind that must not be separated from faith and are just as essential to our salvation as faith is. These are works of mercy and genuine love. A faith that justifies us is a faith working through love (Gal 5, 6). Our genuine and sincere love of God and neighbour is something we can claim credit for. It’s meritorious on our part. (Sola Christu is a false, unbiblical Protestant concept.) If it weren’t, then there would be no point for Jesus to command us to love God and our neighbour in order to be saved. ( I believe I already mentioned this somewhere above, but some people aren’t listening.) Indeed, Paul teaches us that our faith isn’t static, it’s something that grows as a result of our willing obedience to the will of God: to love genuinely from the heart. Love is a free act on our part and necessary for our salvation.

In this instance Paul uses saved in a past and completed sense. He then tells us what we are saved for, which is good works.

This obedience is not achieved by just having faith in God and his promise of salvation, but by doing good works out of a genuine love of God and his children in spite of our salvation ( 2 Cor 10, 15). What good is loving only those who love us?, Jesus asks. When we obey God, we don’t just simply do what we are told out of fear of damnation or to keep up appearances; we obey by coming to realize the virtue of the commandment. Our obedience is translated into wanting to become what is good and true in contradiction to what we selfishly desire. When God commands us to do something, it’s more in the nature of an omniscient appeal. It’s better this way notwithstanding eternal damnation. And so we are called to renounce our selfishness (Lk 6, 46-47) ! David was saved, because he genuinely felt sorry for having offended God. He wasn’t saved because he knew that God would forgive him because he was sorry (Ps 51). His faith was a starting point, but it took his free response to God’s grace to complete it. God’s gift was met by a meritorious human act. David ‘wouldn’t’ have been forgiven unless he freely repented. It would not be fitting according to God’s revelation. Pardon the expression, but this “faith that works” theory is a load of selfish nonsense - a prodigious heresy recognized by the Council of Trent!

Good works are a sign of faith, but they are not an effect of our salvation. For we do not do good works just to show that we have faith (Js 1, 22-25). And if we do good works not just for appearance’s sake like the Pharisee (Lk 18, 9-14) then our actions will be credited to our account in emulation of the virtuous and righteous acts of Christ (Rom 4, 3; 5, 17; 5, 19). Our Lord gave us an example to follow, because he recognizes the meritorious potential of our deeds for which we shall be judged (Ps 62, 12; Prov 24, 12; Mt 16, 27; Rom 2, 6). If human merit has no role in our salvation, then what is the purpose of our Lord’s judging us on the Last Day? Will it be simply an exercise of Divine omnipotence ( the 5th Sola of Protestantism), or a separation of the sheep from the goats? Faith does initially justify, but good works should not be excluded. Hence, Paul is not telling the Ephesians that we are saved by faith alone. Nor are we saved by a true faith as opposed to a false faith to the exclusion of human merit. The apostle is telling us that faith initially justifies. Outside of faith and God’s grace we are in a system of debt. A man is justified not by faith alone but also by works done in God 's grace by the merits of Christ’s Passion, without which our works would amount to zilch (Js 2, 24).

Meanwhile, how does one define faith? Does it mean believing in the person of Christ, or believing in what Christ stood for with regard to human virtue? Will a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or athiest be denied the kingdom of heaven if he acknowledges his sins before God or his conscience or lays his life down for a friend? However we define faith, it cannot be excluded from meritorious human action (good works). For God became man to show us what we must “do” to be saved now that Jesus has opened the gates of heaven.

This sounds very much like the stumbling block Paul talks about in Romans 9 & 10. Sure you have faith but then you seek to establish your own righteousness based on works. The stumbling block is that we cannot establish our righteousness by anything we do. We must rely entirely on Christ and what He did for us.